“apparent coherence of a completed text as the result of a mangle of practice and the lamination of experience”
Bazerman writes the intro: “As graduate students write, they socialize themselves into a discipline—inscribe themselves and are inscribed as disciplined scholars, and in interaction with profs and peers, influence disciplinarily or each other. Process of disciplinarily as people write themselves into authorship.
Articulates why writing is so hard and so rewarding.
Develops situated case studies of writing and disciplinary practices—ethnography of grad students.
Works reflectively to refine methodology )(ways of collecting, analyzing, etc)
Explores theoretical frameworks—how sociohistoric theories could illuminate the case studies
Argues for alternative unit: literate activity: reading, talking, observing, acting, making, thinking, feeling, transcribing.
Uses Bizzel’s discourse community, Ridely, conduit metaphor. And Bakhtin’s speech genres because semiotic genres. Critiques conduit metaphor – people who believe in conduit think that we know each other’s minds so well that communication/language is unproblematic
Prior explores this intersection of writing and disciplinary acculturation through ethnographic case studies—case studies provide the most comprehensive descriptions available of the lived experiences of graduate seminars. Combining analysis of classroom techniques. Student’s texts, profs written responses, etc.
Shows writing as a heterogeneous laminated dialogic process. –Individual through similar experience—in layers.
More recent – CHAT – cultural historic activity theory – laminated chronotopes
Prior, Paul. Writing/Discliplinarity
(1998)